Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Argument about god's existence
Argumentative essay about faith
Argumentative essay about faith
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Instinctually, humans know that there is a greater power in the universe. However, there are a few who doubt such instinct, citing that logically we cannot prove such an existence. St. Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa Theologica, wrote of five proofs for the existence of God. The Summa Theologica deals with pure concepts; these proofs rely on the world of experience - what one can see around themselves. In these proofs, God will logically be proven to exist through reason, despite the refutes against them.
St. Thomas’s five proofs rely on the causality of God. Causality, in simple terms, is the fact that you cannot make something greater from lesser parts; the more perfect does not come from the less perfect. In order for something to exist, there must be something greater to have caused it to exist. This means that you cannot trace back causes infinitely - there must be a first, uncaused cause. Therefore, there must be something that caused everything. This we call God.
One of the first things that must be said, is that God does not exist. At least, he does not exist as a physical thing. God is not something among all the other things in this world, like a tree, building, or rock. God does not exist in that sense. Instead, according to St. Thomas, God is existence.
The first way St. Thomas argues for the existence of God is with the Argument from Motion.
The Argument from Motion consists of five main points. The first states that our senses prove that some things are in motion. For St. Thomas, motion didn’t just mean movement as with a car moving down the road from point A to point B or any other thing physically moving from one place to another. St. Thomas takes the Aristotelian sense of the word, which he defined as...
... middle of paper ...
...potentiality to be. For example, a cat cannot give birth to a dog. Simply because it does not biologically have the potential to do it. In the same way, an object cannot suddenly become what it does not have the potential to be.
On the other hand, what caused God? If everything didn’t exist, than what caused God to exist? Nothing created God, He has always existed There can only be one being that can be uncaused. If there were more than one uncaused being, then beings would have potential. They would be striving to be what the other uncaused being is. This counteracts what an uncaused being is. It’s impossible because it would make an uncaused cause no longer be a being that is pure act. The being or beings would potentially be striving to be more than it or the other is.
Works Cited
Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica. New York: Benziger Bros., 194748.
...nd since from what we know we can imagine things, the fact that we can imagine an infinite, transcendent, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent God is proof that He exists, since what can me thought of is real and can be known.” (ch. 2) Saint Thomas Aquinas' rebutting reply would be that it is simply not so, not everything can be known to mortal man and not all that is real is directly evident to us as mankind.
When the others told Thomas about the resurrection of Jesus, he refused to believe it and said he would only believe it if he saw and felt the hands of Jesus. It was then that Jesus came back down to Earth and took Thomas's hands, which convinced Thomas of God’s existence.
Rene Descartes’ third meditation from his book Meditations on First Philosophy, examines Descartes’ arguments for the existence of God. The purpose of this essay will be to explore Descartes’ reasoning and proofs of God’s existence. In the third meditation, Descartes states two arguments attempting to prove God’s existence, the Trademark argument and the traditional Cosmological argument. Although his arguments are strong and relatively truthful, they do no prove the existence of God.
St. Anselm and St. Thomas Aquinas were considered as some of the best in their period to represent philosophy. St. Anselm’s argument is known as the ontological argument; it revolves entirely around his statement, “God is that, than which no greater can be conceived” (The Great Conversation, Norman Melchert 260). St. Thomas Aquinas’ argument is known as the cosmological argument; it connects the effects of events to the cause for why they happened. Anselm’s ontological proof and Aquinas’ cosmological proof both argued for God’s existence, differed in the way they argued God’s existence, and had varying degrees of success using these proofs.
Through Descartes’s Meditations, he sought to reconstruct his life and the beliefs he had. He wanted to end up with beliefs that were completely justified and conclusively proven. In order to obtain his goal, Descartes had to doubt all of his foundational beliefs so that he could start over. This left Descartes doubting the reality of the world around him and even his own existence. In order to build up to new conclusively proven and justified true beliefs, Descartes needed a fixed and undeniable starting point. This starting point was his cogito, “I think, therefore I am.” In this paper I will argue that Descartes’s argument that he is definite of his own existence, is unsound.
In the first part, Aquinas states that the existence of god is not self-evident, meaning that reason alone without appealing to faith can give a good set of reasons to believe. To support this claim, Aquinas refers to “The Argument of Motion”, proposing that:
The question of God’s existence has been debated through the history of man, with every philosopher from Socrates to Immanuel Kant weighing in on the debate. So great has this topic become that numerous proofs have been invented and utilized to prove or disprove God’s existence. Yet no answer still has been reached, leaving me to wonder if any answer at all is possible. So I will try in this paper to see if it is possible to philosophically prove God’s existence.
In this paper, I will explain how Descartes uses the existence of himself to prove the existence of God. The “idea of God is in my mind” is based on “I think, therefore I am”, so there is a question arises: “do I derive my existence? Why, from myself, or from my parents, or from whatever other things there are that are less perfect than God. For nothing more perfect than God, or even as perfect as God, can be thought or imagined.” (Descartes 32, 48) Descartes investigates his reasons to show that he, his parents and other causes cannot cause the existence of himself.
The locus classicus for Descartes’ consideration on the laws of motion are the articles 36 through 45 of his Principles and the chapter seven of The World. In The World, Descartes introduces a fable about the creation of the world where he exposes the similitude between God’s creative and preservative acts. Descartes begins considering matter as devoid of all its secondary qualities: ‘let us expressly suppose that it [matter] does not have the form of earth, fire, or air, or any other more specific form, like that of wood, stone, or metal’ (AT XI, 33). Hence, Descartes claims that the only quality remaining in bodies is their extension, which is the only one we can conceive clear and distinct. In the beginning, then, God created an indefinite quantity of matter whose substantial quality is its extension.
If God did not exist, he would not be the greatest being imaginable. He is the greatest thing imaginable. Therefore, he does exist. From this argument, God’s existence is viewed. as necessary (Ayer. A. J. 1973).
Descartes proof of the existence of God is derived from his establishment that something cannot come from nothing. Because God is a perfect being, the idea of God can be found from exploring the different notions of ideas. Descartes uses negation to come to the conclusion that ideas do not come from the world or imagination; because the world contains material objects, perfection does not exist.
It would be a great argument if they somehow put the arguments together. Such as Descartes using the proof of “change or motion,” and proof of “efficient cause.” That would eliminate some uncertainty for Descartes. Of course, he does talk about causal proof in the third meditation.
In some ways the arguments for the existence of God combat each other, in asking which one is more convincing. There are two types of arguments, there are empirical arguments along with a rationalistic argument. Anselm, Paley, and Aquinas are the three significant leaders in the philosophy world for finding an argument for the existence of God. The question that is being posed is which is more convincing, Anselm’s rationalistic proof, or the empirical arguments?
In this essay I discuss why there is proof that there is a supernatural being known as God, who has created everything we know and experience. The mere claim, that there could be a "Proof for the Existence of God," seems to invite ridicule. But not always are those who laugh first and think later. Remember how all-knowing doctors/scientists laughed at every new discovery?
St. Thomas Aquinas adjusts this theory. He claims that the soul and body are inseparable, and he states that the soul is the form of the body. St. Thomas further believes that God creates the soul and matter (physical body) simultaneously, and the body affects the nature of that soul. His conception of redemption is distinctly different from Augustine; he a...